"NO SUCH CUSTOM"

AN EXPOSITION OF I CORINTHIANS 11:2-16

by Bruce Terry

Second Edition

CHRISTIAN MESSENGER PUBLISHERS
Montezuma Creek, Utah
84534-0220

1983

FOREWORD

Bruce Terry's exegesis of I Corinthians 11:2-16
is the most thorough and the most objective study of
the covering that has come to my attention. Every
Christian, man and woman, should read it carefully.
I have great respect for Bruce Terry as a Christian
and as a scholar. This booklet should go around the
world.

Hugo McCord

"NO SUCH CUSTOM"
AN EXPOSITION OF I CORINTHIANS 11:2-16

In a day and time when women's liberation is a
popular movement and when even Catholic women are no
longer required to wear a head covering in church, it
is not popular to study the scripture passage in
question unless it is with a view toward explaining
it away. But this passage is inspired scripture too
and should be approached with that respect which
makes a man tremble (See Isaiah 66:2).

Someone will say that the question of whether or
not women should wear a head covering in church is of
such low priority that it should not be discussed at
all or that it really doesn't matter. True, it is
not one of the central doctrines of Christianity, and
to neglect weightier matters of scripture while
arguing on this question can only bring on us the woe
which Jesus pronounces against the scribes and
Pharisees in Matthew 23:23. But Jesus concludes that
saying with the phrase: "without neglecting the
others." No point of scripture, however trivial in
our eyes, ought to be neglected. It should also be
noted that the apostle Paul, inspired by the Holy
Spirit, thinks the question important enough to
devote fifteen verses to this subject. In addition,
this particular question introduces issues of
importance in the areas of tradition, culture, and
scripture interpretation, on whose value everyone
will agree.

"Now I praise you because you remember me in
everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just
as I delivered them to you." (I Corinthians 11:2
NASV)

With this statement Paul begins a new subject in
his letter to the Corinthians: that of their
following the apostolic traditions. Chapter eleven
seems to be in response to a sentence in the
Corinthians' letter (see I Corinthians 7:1) to Paul
which read something like: "We remember you in
everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just
as you delivered them to us." Paul praises them for
this attitude, but he goes on to mention two areas in
which they were falling short in keeping the
traditions. The more serious questiontheir abuse
of the Lord's Supperhe saves until last; instead,
he approaches first the less extensive problem. It
would seem from Paul's praise in verse 2 and his use
of the singular "anyone" (Greek tisalso
translatable "a certain one") that it was only one
(or at most a few) who were trying to change the
apostolic tradition regarding head coverings. Since
the phrase "now concerning" is missing here (compare
I Corinthians 7:1,25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1), it would also
seem that Paul is not answering a direct question in
the Corinthians' letter but rather is responding to a
report which he has heard, just as he heard about the
abuse of the Lord's Supper (I Corinthians 11:18).

The word "tradition" has a bad connotation
today, and this is not entirely unjust. There are
many who would like to bind their own opinions and
traditions ("We've always done it this way.") on the
churches. This problem was around even in Jesus'
day. He had to rebuke the Pharisees and scribes
because they were invalidating God's word for the
sake of their tradition (Matthew 15:1-9; Mark 7:1-
13). Paul warns the Colossians against those who
would have them follow the tradition of men rather
than Christ (Colossians 2:8). But tradition itself
is neutral, neither good nor bad. A tradition is
simply a teaching which is "handed down" or
"delivered." In fact, the word translated
"delivered" (Greek paradidomi) in this verse
is the verb form of the word translated "tradition"
(Greek paradosis). An apostolic tradition is not
bad like a tradition of men. Here Paul praises the
Corinthians for holding firmly to the traditions. He
writes to Thessalonica and commands the Christians to
hold to the traditions which they were taught and to
withdraw from every brother who did not walk
according to the tradition which they received from
the apostles (II Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6). The
"tradition terminology" is used to describe such
teachings as head coverings, the Lord's Supper
(I Corinthians 11:23), and the death, burial, and
resurrection of Christ (I Corinthians 15:3). The
doctrine of head coverings may be a minor tradition
in our eyes, but it is an apostolic tradition and
cannot be ignored. To keep most of the traditions
may bring praise, but it must also bring the
corrective "but" that begins verse 3.

"But I want you to understand that Christ is the
head of every man, and the man is the head of a
woman, and God is the head of Christ. Every man who
has [something] on his head while praying or
prophesying, disgraces his head. But every women who
has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying,
disgraces her head; for she is one and the same with
her whose head is shaved. For if a woman does not
cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off;
but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair
cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head."
(I Corinthians 11:3-6NASV)

If it is a fact that we become new men in
Christ, then our behavior ought to always be related
to Christ. Paul very strongly feels this, and
consequently usually relates Christ to his arguments
as to why something should or should not be done.
This subject is no exception. Paul begins this
argument with Christ. He first discusses the natural
order of headship: God, Christ, man, woman; however,
the fact that God is the head of Christ is not
central to the question of head coverings, and so he
mentions this relationship last. The reader will also
want to consult Philippians 2:5-7 and I Corinthians
15:28 regarding this relationship.

The first relationship that he mentions is that
Christ is the head of every man. Some have contended
that "head" here has the meaning of
"origin,"1 but
it would seem more natural to take it in the sense of
authority, as in Ephesians 5:23. From this Paul
concludes that a man should not have anything on his
physical head when he prays or prophesies. If he
should be wearing something on his head, he is
disgracing his head. Here head is used in a double
sense. It is a disgrace to the man himself to pray
or prophesy with his head covered, but more than
that, it is a disgrace to Christ, who is his
figurative head.

Note that Paul says "every man." This is
important since Paul is writing to a Greek church.
Greek men normally did not wear anything on their
heads while worshiping, but Romans and Jews usually
did. Thus it is that Plutarch at the end of the
first century discusses the following questions:

10. Why is it that when they worship the gods,
they cover their heads, but when they meet any
of their fellow-men worthy of honour, if they
happen to have the toga over the head, they
uncover?2
11. Why do they sacrifice to Saturn with head
uncovered?3
13. Why do they also sacrifice to the god
called "Honor" with the head
uncovered?4

M. R. Vincent, who applies this passage to the Jews,
thinks Paul is "referring to the tallith, a four-cornered
shawl having fringes consisting of eight
threads, each knotted five times, and worn over the
head in prayer. It was placed upon the worshipper's
head at his entrance into the
synagogue."5 (There
is, however, some question as to whether Jewish men
wore the tallith before the destruction of
Jerusalem in A.D. 70.) Vincent goes on to say:

The Romans, like the Jews, prayed with the head
veiled. So Aeneas: "And our heads are
shrouded before the altar with a Phrygian
vestment" (Virgil, Aeneid, iii., 545). The
Greeks remained bareheaded during prayer or
sacrifice, as indeed they did in their ordinary
outdoor life.6

Thus Paul in applying his teaching to every man, is
not simply condoning the Greek customs of his day,
but is handing down a universal rule.

Also, although Paul only specifically mentions
praying and prophesying, it could be argued that the
rule would apply to such speaking functions as
teaching and preaching because of their similarity to
prophesying. However, it could be argued that the
rule applies to communication with God (praying is
speaking to God, while prophesying is speaking from
God), and that teaching and preaching are
communication with men. Even so, there is definitely
a sense in which scriptural teaching and preaching
are communications from God.

The second relationship that Paul mentions is
that man is the head of a woman (see also Ephesians
5:22,23; Genesis 1:27; 3:16). Note that Paul does
not say "every woman." A man is not the head of
someone else's wife. But note also that Paul does
not say "the woman" as if restricting the subject to
the wife, i.e., only married women. His use of
every woman in verse 5 shows that he is referring
to unmarried women as
well.7 In this case, a
woman's head may well be a father, brother, or son,
as is often the case in eastern countries. From this
relationship, Paul concludes that a woman should have
her physical head covered when she prays or
prophesies. If she is not covering her head, she is
disgracing her head. Here again "head" is used in a
double sense. It is a disgrace to the woman herself
to pray or prophesy with her head uncovered, but more
than that, it is also a disgrace to the man who is
her figurative head, whether he should be her
husband, father, or whatever.

Paul goes on to point out how much of a
disgrace: to pray or prophesy uncovered is just as
disgraceful as having had her head shaved. Shaving
the head was primarily a symbol of grief or mourning
(compare Deuteronomy 21:12-13; Isaiah 7:20; 15:2;
22:12; Jeremiah 16:6; Micah 1:16; and Josephus
Antiquities iv.8.23 [§257]). Plutarch, in the
context of discussing mourning at funerals, says, "So
in Greece, whenever any misfortune comes, the women
cut off their hair and the men let it grow . . .
."8
But there is also a possibility that the misfortune
could be being caught in adultery. Vincent says
regarding this:

Among the Jews a woman convicted of adultery
had her hair shorn, with the formula: "Because
thou hast departed from the manner of the
daughters of Israel, who go with their head
covered, therefore that has befallen thee which
thou hast chosen." According to Tacitus [late
first-early second century A.D.bt], among the
Germans an adulteress was driven from her
husband's house with her head shaved; and the
Justinian code [sixth century A.D.bt]
prescribed this penalty for an adulteress,
whom, at the expiration of two years, her
husband refused to receive
again.9

Whether this practice was found among first century
Greeks is unknown, but there is the possibility that
they knew of its significance. Paul goes further to
affirm that the woman who does not cover her head
while praying or prophesying should have her hair cut
off so that her disgrace might be apparent to
everybody. But his purpose in writing this is not so
that a woman who offends in this matter would cut off
her hair, but that realizing its disgrace, she would
wear a covering while praying or prophesying. Thus
he says, "let her cover her head," or as it may also
be translated to bring out the significance of the
present tense of the verb: "let her keep covering
herself." In Greek this verb as well as the previous
"let her shear herself" are in the third person
imperative mood. These are commands which are
conditional based on the if statements that precede
them. But they are interlocked in such a way that
Paul is saying "either do one or the other."

Now notice that Paul does not argue that it is
disgraceful in itself for a woman to have her head
uncovered. Rather he has to appeal to the disgracefulness
of having the head shorn or shaved. (There
is little difference in these words. Both are used
with reference to ending a vow in Acts 18:18 and
21:24. The former was used to describe shearing
sheep in I Samuel 25:2, Isaiah 53:7, and Acts 8:32,
showing that it refers to a very close cropping, much
like the modern burr haircut.) Even today if a woman
has her head shaved for surgery, she is likely to
wear a wig until her hair grows out again. There is
no evidence that the lack of a head covering in
Greece indicated that a woman was a prostitute or had
loose morals. It is often asserted without proof
that the real reason Paul wanted the women to wear a
head covering was so that people would not think they
were immoral. It is significant that Paul does not
make such a truly cultural argument, because such is
not universally true: it is not true today; in fact,
in the Old Testament, the very opposite was true (see
Genesis 38:15 where Tamar posing as a prostitute
covered her face).

Note too that Paul says "every woman." This
is also important, for it shows the universality of
this tradition. It is especially significant since
the evidence indicates that pagan Greek women did
not worship with a covering on their head. In
discussing the customs regarding women's headdress in
the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,
Albrecht Oepke says:

To be sure, the veil was not unknown in Greece.
It was worn partly as adornment and partly on
such special occasions as match-making and
marriage . . ., mourning . . ., and the worship
of chthonic [underworldbt] deities (in the
form of a garment drawn over the head). But it
is quite wrong that Greek women were under some
kind of compulsion to wear a veil in
public.10

He goes on to say that this mistaken idea is often
gotten from two passages in Plutarch. In The Roman
Questions, Plutarch says:

14. Why do sons cover their heads when they
escort their parents to the grave, while
daughters go with uncovered heads and hair
unbound? . . . . Or is it that the unusual is
proper in mourning, and it is more usual for
women to go forth in public with their heads
covered and men with their heads
uncovered?11

As Oepke points out, this passage refers to the Roman
custom,12
not to the Greek. In addition, Plutarch
goes on to say, "But formerly women were not allowed
to cover the head at all.. . . the second [man to
divorce his wifebt] was Sulpicius Gallus, because
he saw his wife pull her cloak over her head . . .
."13
The second passage Oepke quotes from Plutarch is in
Sayings of Spartans where he records regarding
Charillus, an early king of Sparta, "When someone
inquired why they took their girls into public places
unveiled, but their married women veiled, he said,
'Because the girls have to find husbands, and the
married women have to keep to those who have
them!'"14
Although Sparta was a region in Greece,
Corinth was not in Sparta and thus it is difficult to
know to what extent (if at all) this custom was
practiced in Corinth. Oepke goes on to give some of
the evidence that pagan Greek women did not wear a
covering on their head while worshiping. He says:

The mysteries inscription of Andania (Ditt.
Syll.3, 736),
which gives an exact description
of women taking part in the procession, makes
no mention of the veil. Indeed, the cultic
order of Lycosura seems to forbid it [but this
may apply to menbt]. Empresses and goddesses
. . . are portrayed without veils. . .
.15

In addition, the drawings on Grecian pottery show an
absence of headcoverings from a very early
period.16
In the same way, the prohibition of
women braiding their hair with gold ornaments found
in I Timothy 2:9 also shows that at least some women
did not wear head coverings; otherwise, there would
be no need for such a prohibition.

On the other hand, Jewish women, as well as most
women in Tarsus and to the east of there, did wear a
head covering in distinction to the Greek custom. it
would seem that most oriental women covered their
heads in public. Oepke describes the rather stringent
use of the head covering by the Jews. Philo, a first
century Alexandrian Jew, describes the head-covering
(Greek epikranon) as a token of modesty which the
guiltless use. And it is related that a certain
woman named Qimchith, who was the high priest's
mother, was always veiled, even in the
house.17 John
Lightfoot quotes several sources showing that Jewish
women were veiled in the streets, but then says,
"when they resorted unto holy service they took off
their veils, and exposed their naked faces; and that
not out of lightness, but out of
religion."18
"Evidence of the veil in Tarsus is provided by Dio
Chrys[ostom] Or[ationes], 33, 46 and coins bearing
the image of Tyche of
Tarsus."19
Regarding the veiling of women in Tarsus, William M. Ramsay relates
that Dio Chrysostom praises only one Tarsian
characteristic

unreservedly, and that he praises, though it
was, as he says, utterly different from the
Hellenic custom [i.e., Greek customemphasis
minebt]. He was much pleased with the
extremely modest dress of the Tarsian women,
who were always deeply veiled when they went
abroad. As Tarsian ladies walked in the street,
you could not see any part either of their face
or of their whole person, nor could they
themselves see anything out of their
path.20

Oepke further notes that

etiquette as regards the veil becomes stricter
the more one moves east. This rule is brought
out clearly by the provisions of an old
Assyrian code. Married women and widows must
be veiled when in public places. On the other
hand, the head of the harlot, here equated with
the slave, must remain unveiled under threat of
severe penalties. When a man wishes to make
one of these his legitimate wife, a special act
of veiling is
demanded.21

All this applies to the city dwellers, since the
desert nomads seem not to have veiled their
women.22

The significance of this difference of customs
regarding women's headdress in the first century is
it shows that there was no uniform practice,
especially in Greece where women appear without a
head covering in religious rites. Thus Paul, in
applying his teaching to every woman, is definitely
not condoning the Greek customs of his day for the
church, but rather is once again handing down a
universal rule, based on the natural order of things:
God, Christ, man, and woman.

By way of summary, it may be noted that in the
first century among the Romans, both men and women
worshiped with the head covered; among the Greeks,
both men and women worshiped with the head uncovered;
and among the Jews, men covered their heads and women
uncovered theirs when they worshiped. Thus Paul is
introducing a new Christian tradition, which he
grounds, not in the social customs of his day, but in
theological arguments. With this background, it is
not difficult to see why someone would want to
discard the head covering for women in Corinth.
"After all," he would say, "women don't have to wear
head coverings in pagan or Jewish worship; why should
they have to in Christian worship?" Once again, non-
Christian culture was clashing with Christian
tradition.

At this point it is necessary to pause and look
at various viewpoints from which this scripture is
explained away as far as its modern application is
concerned. There are three basic arguments given by
those who deny that women should wear a head covering
while praying. The first argument states that even
in Paul's time the women did not wear head coverings;
rather, Paul was talking about long hair as a
covering (I Corinthians 11:15). The second argument
asserts that Paul was talking about women wearing
head coverings, but that he was referring only to
when they led in public prayers. The third argument
asserts that Paul was talking about women wearing
head coverings during any kind of prayer, but that
head coverings were a cultural item of that time and
thus are not required of Christian women today.
Other objections to head coverings today are raised,
but these three should be examined here since they
relate to verses 3 through 6.

The first argument is based largely on
I Corinthians 11: 15b: "For her hair is given to her
for a covering." Those who argue this say that Paul
said in verse 5 that it was a shame for a woman to
pray or prophesy with her head uncovered so God gave
her hair (or "long hair") to her for a covering.
There are five reasons why this view cannot be
accepted.

First, in verse 4, the expression translated
"having his head covered" in the King James Version
is literally "having down on a head." The New
American Standard Version translates it "who has
something on his head." This expression would hardly
refer to a man wearing long hair. In fact, Plutarch
uses a very similar expression ("having the cloak
down on the head") to refer to a man pulling his
cloak up over his
head.23
And in Esther 6:12 most
manuscripts of the Greek Old Testament read that
Haman went to his house "mourning down on a head"a
way of saying he put something over his head to show
his mourning.24

Second, the word group which includes the words
translated "cover" and "uncover" in verses 5, 6, 7,
and 13 is not used elsewhere to refer to the hair,
but is used to refer to some other type of covering.
"Cover" ("veil"ASV, RSV of verse 6) in verses 6 and
7 translates katakalupto which means "cover,
veil" and in the middle voice "cover
oneself."25 The
word occurs only here in the New Testament, but it is
found several times in the Greek Old Testament. It
is used in Genesis 38:15 of Tamar where it is said
that she had "covered" her face. It can easily be
seen from the preceding verse that she did not cover
her face with her hair but with a veil. Similarly
the word is used in three manuscripts in Esther 6:12
where it says that Haman hurried to his house in
mourning with his head "covered." Here again it is
obvious that Haman had not grown his hair long to
show his shame, but had thrown something over his
head. "Uncovered" ("unveiled"ASV, RSV of verse 5)
in verses 5 and 13 translates akatakaluptos which
simply means
"uncovered."26
This word also is
found nowhere else in the New Testament and only once
in the Greek Old Testament. One manuscript contains
the word in Leviticus 13:45 where it is said that one
with a leperous baldness should "uncover" his head.
(For this see the King James Version; the Hebrew
literally says, "let the hair of his head hang
loose.") Here again it can be seen that "uncover" is
not cutting off the hair. The noun forms of this
word group (katakalupsis and katakalumma,
both meaning "covering") are not found in the New
Testament. Katakalupsis does occur in the second
century Christian writing, The Shepherd of Hermas,
Vision 4, 2, 1: ". . . a virgin arrayed as if she
were going forth from a bride-chamber, all in white
and with white sandals, veiled up to her forehead,
and her head-covering [katakalupsis] consisted of
a turban, and her hair was
white."27
Here once again
it is obvious that the covering is not hair, but a
turban. Of the seventeen times that katakalumma
occurs in the Greek Old Testament, only once does it
refer to a head covering. See Isaiah 47:2. (The King
James Version and the New English Bible take the
Hebrew word behind katakalumma to mean "locks" or
"tresses," but the other modern translations and
Hebrew lexicons28
define the word as "veil.")

Third, the words "cover" in verse 6 and
"covering" in verse 15 translate two entirely
different Greek words. The noun translated
covering in verse 15 is not katakalupsis or
katakalumma, but peribolaion, which means
covering, wrap, cloak" and is described as being "an
article of clothing something like a cloak or
mantle."29
In Hebrews 1:12 (the only other place
the word occurs in the New Testament), it is translated
"mantle" or "vesture." Now a peribolaion
is a type of covering, but the fact that Paul uses an
entirely different word shows that it is not the same
type of covering as that discussed in the preceding
verses. His point in verse 15 is that since nature
gives woman one type of covering, she ought also to
wear another type of covering while praying.

Fourth, if "uncovered" in verse 5 means "not
having long hair" or "not having hair," then verses 5
and 6 become senseless. On the one hand, the word
translated "cut off" or "shear" (Greek keiro)
is used by Plutarch to refer to men's
hair.30 Now
if "uncovered" means "not having long hair," then the
first part of verse 6 reads in effect, "For if a
woman does not wear her hair long like a woman, let
her shear it off like a man." But this makes no
sense at all. For if she were not wearing her hair
long like a woman, she would have already cut it
short like a man. Why would Paul then command her to
do what she had already done? On the other hand, if
"uncovered" means "not having hair," then that verse
would mean, "If a woman does not have hair, then she
should cut it off," and verse 5 would say in effect,
"But every woman who does not have hair on her head
while praying or prophesying, disgraces her head; for
she is one and the same with her whose head is
shaved." The former statement is so ridiculous and
the latter so obvious that it is difficult to imagine
that Paul meant this. The "uncovered" is thus shown
to mean "not having a head covering," and Paul's
statement becomes the reasonable "But every woman who
does not have on a head covering while praying or
prophesying, disgraces her head; for she is one and
the same with her whose head is shaved. For if a
woman does not have on a head covering, let her also
have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a
woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved,
let her have on a head covering. "This is much more
understandable.

And fifth, it may be mentioned that the early
Christians understood Paul to be talking about a head
covering in addition to hair. Vincent says, "The
testimonies of Tertullian and Chrysostom show that
these injunctions of Paul prevailed in the churches.
In the sculptures of the catacombs the women have a
close-fitting head-dress, while the men have the hair
short."31
Thus the covering on the head in verse 6
is not the long hair of verse 15.

It is regrettable that this incorrect interpretation
has found its way into the footnotes of the
New International Version with this reading:

Every man who prays or prophesies with long
hair dishonors his head. And every woman who
prays or prophesies with no covering [of hair]
on her head dishonors her headshe is just
like one of the "shorn women." If a woman has
no covering, let her be for now with short
hair, but since it is a disgrace for a woman to
have her hair shorn or shaved, she should grow
it again. A man ought not to have long hair,
. . . .32

This is poor exegesis, and even worse translation
Besides the addition "of hair" in verse 5, there are
several renderings which involve changes of meaning
in order to have the translation make sense. Even
with these renderings, this translation still
contains the rather ridiculous statement that every
woman with no covering of hair on her head is just
like one of the "shorn women." Note that "shaven"
was changed to "shorn" to soften the true meaninglessness
of this statement. Also, "shorn women" is
put in quotation marks, but in view of the preceding
study (pp. 5-6), it is necessary to ask, "Just what
are these 'shorn women'? Surely not prostitutes?"
Three other renderings must be questioned. The
expression "having down over the head" in verse 4 is
used by Plutarch33
to refer to a cloak or toga
(Greek himation) over the head; the translation
"with long hair" is hardly appropriate. The
rendering of "let her shear herself" in verse 6 as
"let her be for now with short hair" has little to
commend it. It is a misunderstanding of the passive
"be shorn" of the King James Version as the verb "be"
plus the adjective "shorn." The aorist Greek verb
expresses an action, not a state of being. And
lastly, the rendering of let her be covering
herself" as "she should grow it again" is defensible
only as a translation which is required to make sense
in a distorted context. Katakalupto means
"cover," while komao (which Paul uses in
verse 14) means "grow long hair." If Paul had meant
"let her grow long hair," he could easily have said
so. It would seem that this particular footnote was
designed to give the opponents of long hair on men
another scripture to go to.

The second argument against this scripture
applying today asserts that while Paul was talking
about women wearing head coverings, he was only
referring to when they led in public prayers. The
interpretation of "praying" as "leading in prayer" is
highly questionable. To date, the only scripture of
which this writer is aware that directly mentions
leading prayers is Nehemiah 11:17, although such a
practice might well be inferred from a passage such
as I Corinthians 14:16. It may be argued that since
prophesying is a public speaking function, that
praying here is also a public speaking function. The
problem with this is that in I Corinthians 14:34-35
Paul forbids women to speak in church. He would
hardly be here giving instructions to regulate a
practice which was forbidden. Someone may say that
Philip's four virgin daughters prophesied (Acts 21:9),
but it may be noted that the text does not
specify that it was in public. In addition, it may be
noted that the early church (in fact, the Christian
practice all the way down to the twentieth century)
understood Paul to be referring to women wearing a
head covering while the congregation is praying. This
particular interpretation would seem to be a straw
man designed to justify the new prevailing practice,
for those who advance it do not insist that women
should wear head coverings when they lead prayers at
ladies' Bible classes, meal tables, and gatherings of
Christian friends for prayer.

The third argument admits that Paul was talking
about women wearing head coverings, most probably
during congregational prayers, but asserts that this
was only a social custom of the day and thus is not
binding on the church today. The assumption behind
this teaching is that if an action, even if it is
commanded to be done, is found to have been a
cultural trait, it does not have to be performed
today. Using this assumption, one may disregard many
teachings of the New Testament which to follow would
make one a social misfit. There is no Biblical
authority for such an assumption to this writer's
knowledge. This is rather a case of "teaching as
doctrines the precepts of men" (Mark 7:7). It may be
argued that "common sense" says that cultural
commands are not binding today. But "common sense"
is merely human wisdom and Paul says in I Corinthians
2:3, "which things we also speak, not in words taught
by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit,
. . ." (Also compare I Corinthians 2:5-6). We are
to speak as God has spoken in His word, not as common
sense would tell us.

Furthermore, as has been seen above (pp. 7-9),
Paul was not merely telling the Corinthians that they
were to worship according to the prevailing social
customs of the day; rather, he was introducing a new
Christian tradition which ran counter to the practice
of the pagan Greek religions. Paul's teaching of
prayer and prophecy with men bareheaded and women
covered seems to have been an apostolic innovation.
At this point, an objection is sometimes raised:
"I just can't see my wife wearing a heavy veil over
her face." But where in this passage, it may be
asked, does scripture mention a face-veil? The word
for face-veil (Greek kalumma), although found in
the New Testament in II Corinthians 3:13-16, is not
found here at all. The word "cover" (Greek
katakalupto) is a general word. Out of the
twenty-five times it is found in the Greek Old
Testament, it refers once to a face covering (Genesis
38:15), once to a head covering (Esther 6:12), and
once to a seraph covering his face and feet with his
wings (Isaiah 6:2). In the Apocrypha (Susanna 32) it
is used absolutely to refer to Susanna having her
face (or possibly her head) veiled. But in the
passage in question "head" rather than "face" is
specified as being covered. The confusion arises
from the fact that many modern translations of the
New Testament render katakalupto as "veil,"
but "veil" to most modern Americans suggests a
face-veil, although it does not necessarily refer to
such. It was not the general practice in the first
century (except perhaps at Tarsus) to cover the face
with the veil. The modern custom of heavily veiling
the face in the Middle East and North Africa is due
to a great extent to Islamic
influence.34 Vincent
says, "The head-dress of Greek women consisted of
nets, hair-bags, or kerchiefs, sometimes covering the
whole head. A shawl which enveloped the body was
often thrown over the head, especially at marriages
or funerals."35
There is no face-veil here.

Some have argued that a hat is not a veil and
thus does not qualify today. But Paul did not use a
word for a specific article of clothing. He does
not even use the generic noun katakalupsis
("covering"). Rather he uses the even more general
verb katakalupto ("cover"). "Cover" is a very
general term and cannot be limited to a particular
item of dress in the Greek culture. Thus a hat,
netting, a scarf, a piece of cloth, or any such item
(although wigs are doubtful) that covers the head is
quite proper.
Having discussed various objections that are
usually raised at this point, the exposition of the
text may proceed.

"For a man ought not to have his head covered,
since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman
is the glory of man. For man does not originate from
woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not
created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's
sake. Therefore the woman ought to have [a symbol
of] authority on her head, because of the angels.
However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of
man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the
woman originates from the man, so also the man has
his birth through the woman; and all things originate
from God." (I Corinthians 11:7-12NASV)

Paul continues his argument on the natural order
of things, no longer looking to the order of
headship, but now to the order of creation. The
creation shows us two things about the relationship
between man and woman: woman was created both from
and for man. This is why man is the image and glory
of God, while woman is the glory of man. Note that
woman is not said to be in man's imageshe too is in
God's image (see Genesis 1:26-27), but being second
in creation she is man's glory, not God's. This
implies two things: (1) a man ought not to have his
head covered (verse 7), and (2) the woman ought to
have authority on her head (verse 10). Paul then
goes on to add, presumably for the sake of those men
who would read too much into this argument, that man
and woman are not independent of each other because
now man is born through woman and ultimately all
things originate from God. Verses 11 and 12 give no
comfort to those men who imagine that they are better
than women because Adam was created before Eve.

The line of reasoning in these verses is easily
understood except for two points in verse 10: (1)
the meaning of the word "authority" and (2) the
additional argument "because of the angels" thrown in
at the last of this verse. Four different
interpretations have been given of the meaning of the
word "authority" here: (1) the man's authority over
the woman, (2) the woman's authority to speak, (3) a
magical authority against evil angels, and (4) the
word "authority" as an Aramaic colloquialism for
"veil."

The most common explanation of the meaning of
authority here is that Paul is referring to the
authority that the man has over the woman. This is
quite often expressed by the use of the words
"subordination" or "subjection." This explanation
fits the context fairly well, although it should be
noted that Paul does not explicitly refer to the
subordination of woman to man in this passage. The
closest he comes to this is in verse 3 where he says
that the man is head of a woman. This is similar to
Ephesians 5:22-23 where Paul says that wives should
be subject (or subordinate) to their husbands because
man is head of the woman. Several modern English
translations, including Moffatt's, Goodspeed's,
Phillips' , C. B. Williams', the Jerusalem, Amplified,
Living, and New American Bibles, and the Today's
English Version, have worded verse 10 in such a way
as to bring out this interpretation.

The problem with this interpretation is that
literally Paul says the woman ought to "have
authority." Despite the rewording done by the
translations listed above, in its usual sense the
phrase "have authority" refers to the authority of
the person who has itin this case, the woman's own
authority. Because of this, W. M. Ramsay says that
this interpretation "that the 'authority' which the
woman wears on her head is the authority to which she
is subject [is] a preposterous idea which a Greek
scholar would laugh at anywhere except in the New
Testament, where (as they seem to think) Greek words
may mean anything that commentators
choose."36 And
John Lightfoot notes that the expression "to have
power" denotes "to have power in one's own hand,
not a power above one: as Matt. vii.29; John
xix.10; I Cor. vii.37; ix.4; and elsewhere a thousand
times."37

A further problem is the lack of evidence that
the head covering was a symbol of woman's subjection
to man in the first century. There are Rabbinic
parallels which treat the veil as a sign of the
married woman,38
but even this may signify modesty
and chastity rather than subjection. Lightfoot states
that among the Jewish rabbis the veil was a sign of
shame, not subjection.39
Further, he asks why, if
the veil is a sign of subjection, is the woman not
required to wear it all the time? "It is clear enough
the apostle speaks of veiling only when they were
employed in religious worship; and that regard is had
to something that belongs to the woman in respect of
God, rather than in respect of her
husband."40

A second suggestion as to the meaning of
"authority" here is that the word refers to a woman's
own authority or dignity. William Barclay's
translation adopts this interpretation when it refers
to "the veil which gives her her own authority."
Regarding this, Ramsay says:

Authority or power that belongs to the wearer,
such power as the magistrate possesses in
virtue of his office, was meant by the Greek
word exousia. So Diodorus, i. 47, describes
the statue of the mother of the Egyptian king
Osymandyas, wearing [literally, "having"bt]
three royalties upon her head, i.e. she
possessed the royal dignity in three different
ways, as daughter, wife and mother of a king.
The woman who has a veil on her head wears
authority on her head: that is what the Greek
text says.41

He goes on to illustrate this meaning by appealing to
the nineteenth century customs of Syria and Palestine
as described in W. M. Thomson's The Land and the
Book, page 31:

In oriental lands the veil is the power and the
honour and dignity of the woman. With the veil
on her head, she can go anywhere in security
and profound respect. She is not seen; it is
the mark of thoroughly bad manners to observe a
veiled woman in the street. She is alone. The
rest of the people around are non-existent to
her, as she is to them. She is supreme in the
crowd. . . . . But without the veil the woman
is a thing of nought, whom anyone may insult.
. . . . A woman's authority and dignity vanish
along with the all-covering veil that she
discards.42

It must, however, be asked whether there is any
relationship between nineteenth century Islamic
customs and those of first century Greece. And
although this interpretation gives the word
"authority" a fair meaning, it fails to do justice to
the context: Paul is not talking about the dignity
of women, and thus this view cannot be accepted
without modification.

Two other views must be briefly mentioned. A
third interpretation is that the veil was thought of
as some sort of magical authority to protect the
woman from evil angels whenever she drew near to God.
This does retain the meaning of "her own authority"
and also ties in with the phrase "because of the
angels," but it is hard to see Paul advocating a
magical viewpoint. In addition, this view restricts
the interpretation of the angels to evil angels and
there is a "lack of evidence showing that a woman's
veil was ever thought of as having such a function in
antiquity."43

The fourth interpretation is a conjecture that
"authority" might have been an Aramaic colloquialism
for "veil" and thus mean "veil" and nothing more.
This is based on the fact that the root of the
Aramaic word sltwnyh, which means a "veil" or
"head-ornament," is slt which is exactly the
same as a common Aramaic verb which means "to have
power, dominion over."44
Thus in popular Aramaic
speech, "authority" might have meant "veil." But as
simple as this view would make the passage to
understand, it is still only a conjecture and there
is no evidence that the word "authority" ever meant
"veil." Futher, it is questionable whether Paul
would have used an Aramaic colloquialism in writing
to a Greek church.

There are also several views regarding what the
phrase "because of the angels" means. One view is
that the woman should cover her head because of the
example of the ministering angels (Hebrews 1:14) who
cover themselves with their wings (Isaiah 6:2). But
if this is true, why should the head-covering be
restricted to only women? After all, man is a little
lower than the angels (Psalms 8:5KJV).

Another view is that the angels are evil angels
such as those who left their proper dwelling and
sinned (Jude 6; II Peter 2:4), possibly by seducing
women (Genesis 6:4; also the apocryphal Book of
Enoch, chapter 15). The woman should wear a head
covering lest the angels should lust after her. Here
the covering functions either as a magic charm to
frighten the evil angels away or as a veil which
hides the woman's
charms.45
But, in the scriptures
the word "angel" unmodified refers to good angels;
there are indeed evil angels, but it is possible to
know this because of such expressions as "the devil
and his angels" and "the angels that sinned."

A third and more likely view is that the angels
in question are good angels who are present when the
Christians gather for public worship and whose
presence demands a certain respect. This meaning is
most clearly illustrated by parallels found in the
Dead Sea Scrolls. In the Scroll of the War Rule (1QM
vii. 4-6) is found:

And no lame man, nor blind, nor crippled, not
having in his flesh some incurable blemish, nor
smitten with any impurity in his flesh, none of
these shall go with them into battle. . . .
for the angels of holiness shall accompany
their armies.46

Again, in the "Rule of the Congregation" (1QSa ii.
3-11), also known as the "Rule Annexe" or the
"Messianic Rule," is found:

And let no person smitten with any human
impurity whatever enter the Assembly of God.
And every person smitten with these impurities,
unfit to occupy a place in the midst of the
Congregation, and every (person) smitten in his
flesh, paralysed in his feet or hands, lame or
blind or deaf, or dumb or smitten in his flesh
with a blemish visible to the eye, or any aged
person that totters and is unable to stand firm
in the midst of the Congregation: let these
persons not en[ter] to take their place in the
midst of the Congregation of men of renown, for
the Angels of holiness are [in] their
[Congrega]tion.47

These two passages, especially the last, remind one
of Leviticus 21:17-23.

The point is that the holy angels are present in
assemblies for worship (I Corinthians 4:9; Psalm 138:1
LXX). Therefore those things which are shameful
should not be allowed in the assemblies. Now under
the New Covenant, being blind, lame, etc. is not
disgraceful, but Paul has just said that every woman
who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying
disgraces her head; it is just as shameful as if
she had shaved her head. Thus a woman should not pray
with her head uncovered in the presence of angels.

With this understanding, it is possible to see
more clearly the meaning of "authority" in this
verse. Ramsay is right in asserting that it is the
woman's own authority that Paul is referring to, but
Paul is not here discussing the woman's dignityin
fact, he is not discussing social customs at all.
Rather, he is saying that since the woman is the
glory of man rather than the glory of God, the head-
covering is the symbol of her authority or right to
communicate with God. For her to do so without this
symbol of authority is shameful, for this is a sacred
time when angels are present. The last of verse 9
and verse 10 may thus be paraphrased to read: "Woman
was created for man's sake. For this reason a woman
should have a covering over her head as a symbol to
the angels of her right to pray."

"Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman
to pray to God [with head] uncovered? Does not even
nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair,
it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long
hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to
her for a covering." (I Corinthians 11:13-15NASV)

Up to this point Paul has given three
theological arguments as to why a man should pray
bareheaded and a woman covered. With verse 13 he
introduces a sociological argument: an appeal to
nature and propriety. A question to be resolved,
however, is whether Paul is referring to the society
of the whole Greek culture or to the Christian
subculture within it.

Paul starts this argument by appealing to the
Corinthians' own ideas about what is proper. He
tells them to judge for themselves and asks them if
they think it is proper for a woman to pray with her
head uncovered. Now at first glance, it appears that
Paul is asking them to decide on the basis of their
cultural sense of proprietythat is, according to
the way that they were brought up. But when it is
considered that pagan Greek women did pray bareheaded,
this changes the picture. For if this is an
appeal for the Corinthians to judge according to
their upbringing, many would have to answer, "There
is nothing improper about a woman praying uncovered."
But it is obvious that Paul is expecting them to
judge it improper. This leads one to think that the
appeal is not to what is proper in light of their
upbringing, but rather to what is proper in light of
their Christian teaching. This may be illustrated by
considering the answer that a gospel preacher would
get today if he should ask the congregation whether
it is proper for a woman to preach publicly. The
answer he would receive would hopefully be "no." But
this answer would not be based on the practice of
American culture; rather, it would be based on the
teachings of the Bible. This conclusion is
strengthened when it is noticed that Paul says
something similar in I Corinthians 10: 15 regarding
food offered to idols: "I speak as to wise men; you
judge what I say." Here too his appeal for them to
judge is not based on their upbringing, but on their
Christian teaching.

Now there are some who would ignore the above
and argue that because the great majority of American
Christians today think that it is quite proper for a
woman to pray with her head uncovered, it is all
right for her to do so. In effect, they are saying
that the conclusions from the three theological
arguments dealing with the headship, creation, and
angels are not valid because the sociological
argument is no longer valid. Apparently they feel
the sociological argument is more important than the
theological ones. But even if the sociological
argument should be found to be no longer valid, that
does not change the fact that Paul has just presented
three theological arguments which are valid.

Also, those who would advocate this line of
reasoning need to face up to the fact that it has far
reaching consequences. For example, in I Corinthians
14:34-35 Paul supports the teaching that women are to
keep silent in the public assemblies with two
arguments. One is theological: that women are to be
subject, even as the law says; the other is sociological:
that it is a shame or disgrace for a woman to
speak in church. Now it is no longer a shame for a
woman to speak in church in American society; when
Gerald Ford was President of the United States, he
attended a church that had a woman preacher.
Therefore, if it is true that the invalidity of a
sociological argument overrides the validity of a
theological argument, then women may speak in
churches today. The questions of women not speaking
in church and wearing a head-covering must rise and
fall together. Many people in America today group the
two questions
together.48
They are supported by
very similar arguments. If one practice is to be
followed, so is the other; if one is to be disregarded,
the other may be also. Those who advocate that
invalid sociological arguments release the theological
arguments must face up to the consequences of
their teaching and apply it consistently.

In passing, it may be noted that here Paul no
longer mentions both prophesying and praying, but
only praying. This is in fact the crux of the
question, for Paul's day as well as our own. Not
everyone prophesied (I Corinthians 12:29), even in
the days of miraculous gifts, but everyone prayed.
And although prophesying was forbidden to women in
the assembly (I Corinthians 14:34), praying was not.
This was, and is, the important question.

But to return to the question at hand, perhaps
Paul is not so sure that the Corinthians will answer
his question in verse 13 right. For he goes ahead to
argue that their answer should be that it is improper
for a woman to pray uncovered. He does not, as some
would suppose, leave the answer up to the whims of
culture; rather, he proceeds to ask a rhetorical
question regarding the natural order of things. He
asks if nature does not teach that men should be
bareheaded and women covered by the type of natural
covering they have? The implied answer is "yes,
nature does teach this," as is shown by the use of
the Greek negative particle oude which expects an
affirmative answer. By nature Paul refers to the
natural order of thingsthe customs of society in
generaland not to some physiological characteristic.
Physiologically a man's hair may grow as long
as a woman's, but in most societiesboth then and
nowmen cut their hair shorter than women. Paul
appeals to this to show that women naturally have
more covering on their heads than men; therefore,
they should also wear a head-covering. Note that
this argument is still valid today; in general, women
still wear their hair longer than men. Even in the
subculture in which men wear their hair long, the
women wear their hair even longer.

He concludes by saying that a woman's long hair
is given to her as a covering. The covering here is
not the same as that mentioned earlier. Here he says
that a woman's hair serves as a mantle (Greek
peribolaion), a wrap that hangs from her head
over her shoulders, much like the modern shawl is
sometimes worn. Some have supposed that long hair
can substitute for a head-covering, and they appeal
to the Greek preposition anti which is used here
and which can mean "instead of." Thus they translate
"her long hair has been given to her instead of a
covering." But here anti does not refer to a
replacement, but to an equivalent, and should be
translated "for, as, in place
of."49 Paul's
argument here is not that the woman who has long hair
may dispense with the head-covering, but rather that
the fact that she already has one type of covering
shows she is to wear a head-covering.

In passing, it may be noted that verses 14 and
15 have been distorted to prove all sorts of things
that Paul never said. Verse 14 has been used to say
that it is a sin for a man to have long hair. Paul
does not say that it is a sin, but rather a dishonor
(Greek atimia), if a man should be wearing (or
growing) his hair long. Greek men normally wore
their hair short and grew it long only in a time of
mourning. Thus Plutarch says, "So in Greece,
whenever any misfortune comes, the women cut off
their hair and the men let it grow, for it is usual
for men to have their hair cut and for women to let
it grow."50
Some have tried to tie in the Greek
word atimia with homosexuality, referring to such
passages as Romans 1:24, 26 (translated "vile" in the
King James Version). Truly homosexuality is dishonorable,
but so is death (I Corinthians 15:43); and
Jesus (John 8:49), Paul (II Corinthians 11:21) and
all the apostles (II Corinthians 6:8) are said to
have been dishonored. There is no reference to homosexuality
in these passages and neither is there such
a reference in the passage in question. Besides, long
hair was not the symbol of homosexuality among men in
the first century; shaving off the body hair
was.51

Verse 15 has been made to say that a woman
should not cut her hair. The verse actually says
nothing of the sort. It simply says that if a woman
should be wearing her hair long, this is a glory to
her. The Cotton Patch Version of Paul's Epistles
reads: "for a woman long hair is attractive," and
J. B. Phillips translates that long hair is "of
glorious beauty to a woman." While the scriptures do
here extol the virtues of long hair on a woman,
nothing is said of short hair. It is not said that
it is a sin, not even a shame, although from the
passage one could hardly conclude that there is
anything glorious about it.

"But if one is inclined to be contentious, we
have no other practice, nor have the churches of
God." (I Corinthians 11:16NASV)

Having presented three theological arguments and
one sociological argument as to why men should pray
bareheaded and women covered, Paul sums up by saying
in effect, "And if you don't like it, I'm sorry, but
that's the way it is." In doing so, however, he
throws in a fifth argument at the end of the
discussion: this innovation that someone is teaching
isn't practiced in any of the other churches of God.
By Paul's appealing to the universal practice of the
churches, we see that he is not saying that one
should do what his culture does. Rather there was one
practice for all the churches in spite of the fact
that they were found in many different cultures of
the first century. This was not just something that
Paul had made up; it was and is apostolic tradition.

A question is often raised regarding exactly
what custom Paul is referring to in this verse.
Literally the verse reads, "But if anyone thinks to
be contentious, we do not have such a custom, neither
the churches of God." Some have mistakenly taken the
phrase "we do not have such a custom" to mean "we do
not have any particular custom." They say that Paul
is saying that if a person wants to disagree, he may
do as he pleases. This explanation certainly jars
against the context, for it hardly seems likely that
Paul would write for thirteen verses arguing for and
even commanding a practice and then at the end say,
"But if you don't want to do it, you don't have to.
As Neil Lightfoot says, "This cannot mean, 'If anyone
strives over this or causes trouble, then dismiss the
whole subject.' Paul would not give prolonged
reasoning for the veiling of women and then drop the
subject with one
statement."52
Paul is not saying,
"we do not have any custom"; rather, he is saying,
"we do not have a custom like this one I have been
discussing." "Such" does not mean "any"; it refers
to something previously discussed.

Some have argued that Paul is saying, "we do not
have such a custom as being contentious." But
contention would hardly be called a custom.

Nor is the custom that Paul mentions the
practice that he has been arguing for. He is
obviously not saying, "we do not have such a custom
as men praying bareheaded and women covered." That
they did do this is shown by the fact that this has
been the practice in Christianity down to the
twentieth century. Some have overlooked the fact
that the church did have such a practice and
mistakenly referred the word "custom" or "practice"
to women praying with a covered head. For this
reason many modern translations have changed the word
such" to "other" in order to make the meaning clear.

But this change in wording is really not
necessary and often is quite confusing to the average
reader. A much better and clearer translation is one
such as is found in William Barclay's translation of
the New Testament: "let it suffice to say that we
have no such custom as the participation of unveiled
women in public worship, nor have the congregations
of God." A similar translation is given by F. F. Bruce
in his The Letters of Paul: "we have no such
custom as you are trying to introduce, and neither
have the churches of God elsewhere." That these
translations are correct is shown by studying the
following chart:

CUSTOM

COMMAND

v. 4 "man who has something
on his head"

v. 5 "woman who has her
head uncovered"

v. 6 "woman does not cover her head"

v. 6 "let her cover her
head"

v. 7 "a man ought not
to have his head
covered"

v. 10 "the woman ought
to have a symbol
of authority on
her head"

v. 13 "a woman . . . with
head uncovered"

It is not the practice of the churches in the right
hand column that Paul refers to in verse 16. He never
refers to the churches' practice without commanding
it. On the other hand, when he refers to the
non-Christian custom, it is always with disapproval
("disgraces his head"; "disgraces her head"; "let her
also have her hair cut off"; "is it proper?"). And
it is the disapproved of custom to which he refers
first, last, and the majority of times. Thus when he
says, "we do not have such a custom," the custom to
which he is referring is the one that he has
discussed with disapprovalthe custom which the one
who wants to be contentious is trying to introduce.
It is the custom of women praying bareheaded, just
like they did in pagan Greek religions. But Paul
says that this practice of women praying
bareheaded53
is simply a Greek custom, and in the churches of God
there is no such custom as this.

Some question exists about exactly whom Paul
refers to by his use of the plural "we" in this
verse. Occasionally Paul seems to use the plural
"we" to simply refer to himself and to emphasize his
authority. For this reason, several translators,
including James Moffatt, Edgar J. Goodspeed, and
Charles B. Williams, have rendered the pronoun as "I"
rather than "we." Another suggestion is that by "we"
he means "you and me." But the most likely solution
is that by "we" he is referring to the apostles.53
He is saying that the custom that someone is trying
to introduce is not an apostolic tradition.

By way of conclusion, it may be noted that to a
great extent Paul's arguments still apply. The fact
that Christ is still head of every man and the man is
head of woman has not changed. Neither has the fact
of creation, that woman was created from and for man.
And whatever the meaning of the phrase "because of
the angels," it is a safe bet that the angels have
not changed. Women still wear their hair longer than
men. Although it may be objected that modern man
would not judge it improper for a woman to pray
bareheaded, quite possibly Paul was appealing for
them to judge in light of their Christian teaching, a
fact which would well change the verdict. And
although the general practice of the churches is no
longer the same as it was in the first century, the
fact that for nineteen hundred years the uniform
practice of the churches was for men to pray
bareheaded and women covered stands as an indictment
of the modern practice.

Paul's arguments are still valid! The scripture
still says that a woman ought to have authority on
her head! Paul's command for a woman to either shear
off her hair or else keep covering her head is still
in the Bible! (There may be some women who will
start wearing a head-covering because they read this,
but there will be no women who will shear off their
hair. It is still a shame.) The command should
still be obeyed.

Paul uses theological arguments rather than
cultural ones. It is noteworthy that he does not
make the truly cultural argument that people would
think that the women were prostitutes if they went
without a headcovering, although it has often been
asserted that this was the real reason that Paul gave
this instruction. It would seem that it is not so
much the culture of the first century which has
produced the lack of head-coverings as it is the
culture of the twentieth century. Three modern
cultural factors seem to have produced the disregard
for this teaching: (1) the fact that hats and/or
veils are no longer considered stylish, (2) the move
for greater women's rights and equality with men, and
(3) the tendency toward lack of respect for
authority. It is modern culture that would cause men
and women to be contentious with the apostle Paul's
teaching. As C. M. Pullias has said:

There would be no trouble at all in
understanding the eleventh chapter of First
Corinthians were it not for the fact that women
have got into the habit of cutting their hair
and going to the church meeting bareheaded and
are seeking to defend such
practice.54

The purpose of this booklet is not to
disfellowship anyone or to start a new sect; rather
it is to bring the modern practice in line with the
apostolic teaching. It is not good to claim to be
restoring New Testament Christianity and then back
down and say we don't have to do what these verses
say. This sort of teaching opens the door for all
sorts of false doctrine. A good example of this is
found in an article which was written by Gerald A.
Larue, professor of biblical history and archaeology
at the school of religion in the University of
Southern California. In the article which appeared
in the Los Angeles Times for June 10, 1975 he
wrote:

If rules in the Corinthian correspondence about
women keeping silent in the churches (I Cor.
14:34ff) and covering their heads during
worship (I Cor. 11:4-10) are quietly ignored in
our 20th-century culture, why are the
statements about homosexuality selected as
peculiarly authoritative and pertinent? Those
who use the Bible as a weapon should be
consistentaccept all of it, or justify the
selection of a few passages to the exclusion of
others. Better yet, they might apply selected
biblical passages to their own lives, not the
lives of others.55

The only way to effectively silence such false
teaching is to live in obedience to God's word, in
order to put a stop to the accusation of
inconsistency (Titus 2:7-8; I Peter 3:16).

Of late the only real use that these verses in
I Corinthians 11 have seen is to assert that women
should not pray in the assembly (appealing to verse
3) and that men should not have long hair (appealing
to verse 14). If these verses still apply, they all
do. It is time that this passage was restored to its
original purpose, for "all scripture is inspired by
God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for
correction, for training in righteousness; that the
man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good
work" (II Timothy 3:16-17).

2Plutarch
Moralia, The Roman Questions, 10.
All references to The Roman Questions are from Volume
IV of the translation by Frank Cole Babbitt in the
Loeb Classical Library edition (Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press, 1962), pp. 20-27.

5M.
R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New
Testament (Wilmington, Delaware: Associated
Publishers and Authors, 1972), p. 786. Cf. also John
Lightfoot, A Commentary on the New Testament from
the Talmud and Hebraica, IV (Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Baker Book House, 1979), 230.

7In
the early third century Tertullian wrote an
essay urging unmarried women to obey Paul's command.
Tertullian, On the Veiling of Virgins, found in
Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (eds.) The
Ante-Nicene Fathers, IV (Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), 27-37.

23Plutarch
Moralia, Sayings of Romans, Scipio
the Younger, 13. All references to Sayings of Romans
are from Volume III of the translation by Frank Cole
Babbitt in the Leob Classical Library edition
(Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press,
1961), pp. 190-191.

24Mention
should be made here of James
Hurley's argument that "having down on a head" does
not refer to a head covering. He argues that if Paul
did not wear the Jewish tallith he could not
properly participate in synagogue worship; now Paul
declares that he became "all things to all men"
(I Corinthians 9:22). Hurley argues that if Paul is
talking about a head covering in I Corinthians 11:4
then he himself would be dishonoring Christ when he
acted like a Jew in the synagogue. Hurley, op. cit.,
p. 195. It may be replied that there is no evidence
that a man had to wear the tallith in the
synagogue. Furthermore, Paul did not have to act
like a Jew in such a minor way to be accepted as a
Jew; he was a Jew. But he was a Jew who believed
that the Messiah had come, and he was not afraid to
act differently to proclaim that belief. It was his
preaching of a crucified, resurrected Messiah that
got him thrown out of the synagogues, not his failure
to comply with head covering customs. His "all
things to all men" did not include the tallith.

25William
F. Arndt and F. Wilber Gingrich, A
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other
Early Christian Literature (Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 412.

48As
an example, consider the following quote
by Jimmy Carter while a candidate for President, "I
find it difficult to question Holy Scripture but I
admit that I do have trouble with Paul sometimes,
especially when he says that woman's place is with
her husband and that she should keep quiet and cover
her head in church. I just can't go along with
that." "Jimmy Carter's Big Breakthrough," Time, May
10, 1976, p. 20.

53Archibald
Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First
Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, The
International Critical Commentary (New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1911), p. 235.